We are appeasing our enemies and making the same mistakes as in the 1930s
during the rise of Nazism

There are disquieting parallels between the situation that confronted our country some 90 years ago and that which now prevails. In the late Twenties and early Thirties, Britain was engulfed in revulsion at the horrors of the Great War and all but bankrupt as a result of it, as well as striving to recover from the Depression years. Despite the growing menace that Nazism presented to European stability, the notorious “Ten Year Rule” – which assumed that Britain would not be at war in the next decade – remained in force. The nation’s defences were progressively weakened, while calls for rearmament fell largely on deaf ears.

Against a widespread background of support for pacifism and appeasement, blind faith in collective security through the League of Nations was used to excuse unwillingness to grasp the nettle of rearmament, at least until it was nearly too late.

Today, although in very different circumstances, there are some uncomfortable similarities. For example, in the wake of unfinished business in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is currently little public appetite for further, significant military intervention abroad. Thus there is cover for our recent, feeble responses to events in the Middle East such as in Libya, Syria and once again in Iraq, as well as in the face of the exponential threat posed by Islamic State. The situation in Yemen is also deteriorating in a dangerous manner.

Cuts have left Britain without an aircraft carrier. The new HMS Queen Elizabeth will not be fully operational with a complement of F-35 jets until 2020.(Photo: Reuters)

Meanwhile, we watch as a resurgent Russia rattles an ever-larger sabre and, sanctions notwithstanding, acts with impunity in Crimea and Ukraine. This is the cause of a dark cloud of genuine apprehension in such countries as the Baltic States, where Nato and thus Britain has very real commitments.

Now, 90 years on and with burgeoning threats to world order, the UK again rightly places reliance on collective security, this time through its contributions to the UN and Nato – but, as then, does so while steadily weakening its own defence posture. Successive reductions have also seriously undermined our critical defence relationship with the United States, where many have deep concern about whether we really are the staunch ally that, traditionally, we have been. If taken much further, cuts to the level of our forces will also begin to unravel the credibility of nuclear deterrence, which relies in part on being the last resort when strong conventional defence has failed to deter.

My colleagues and I are experienced enough to understand that defence expenditure has to compete with other government spending priorities. We also appreciate that the UK’s post-Cold War focus on quality rather than quantity in defence has provided this nation with a much sounder military nucleus on which to build than was the case in the mid-Thirties.

Nevertheless, mentions of defence in the recent Queen’s Speech were relegated to the end and contained nothing specific, except to announce the Strategic Defence and Security Review that is now under way. Generalised comments such as the Government doing “whatever is necessary to ensure that our courageous Armed Forces can keep Britain safe” are welcome but, for example, there was nothing to indicate that even the current, inadequate levels in the defence budget will be maintained. Indeed, there are signs that lack of resources is causing important tasks to be cut.

Critically, there was no guarantee that we would meet our Nato agreed minimum defence spending target of 2 per cent of GDP, one recommended by our own Prime Minister. There was certainly nothing to suggest the possibility of an increase in defence resources that the growing threat demonstrates is now justified if, in Thirties style, we are not to leave it too late.

This also ignores the fact that complex 21st-century defence capability cannot be regenerated in the relatively short order that prevailed 90 years ago. If the rumoured further reduction in the MoD’s budget comes to pass then other government promises such as growing defence equipment spending at a level of 1 per cent above general inflation will lead to further, disproportionate pressures elsewhere. Expenditure in such areas as personnel, training, logistics and support will be yet further hard hit. Critically, the British military will have yet more difficulty in achieving and maintaining the high levels of operational readiness and efficiency that should characterise our Armed Forces in a dangerous strategic environment.

Aid spending should not be lumped in with defence purely as a means of illustrating that this country is indeed meeting its 2 per cent Nato target. If the outcome of the Review is a further reduction in military expenditure and not a commitment to a sustained increase, then the Government will be neglecting its prime and overriding duty, the defence of the nation, by failing to halt the progressive decline of British military capability into penny packet numbers.

We therefore call on the Government to acknowledge this parlous state of affairs and exhort it to ensure that the Defence and Security Review does not degenerate into yet another cuts exercise. It must be policy-led and not resource driven. The policy must acknowledge the inexorable growth of military threats to our long-term national security. The resultant budget must provide for rebuilding our forces to adequate levels and, along the way, set an example to many of our allies where similarly blind eyes have been turned to the consequences of declining military strength. In particular, it must demonstrate to potential enemies that Britain continues to be a country that will not be coerced into submission through military weakness when diplomacy fails in the future, as it did in the Thirties.

Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh is a former First Sea Lord. His article reflects the views of his colleagues at the time, Admiral of the Fleet Lord Boyce, Field Marshal Lord Walker and Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Squire